Jonah is smarter than I am, hahahaha...
although in a completely separate context, as far as quotes go I'm going to put that one right up with "Alabama Does" from Jonathan Allen. I'll never again see the krispy kreme signs without thinking about pass protection...
Absolutely he does. Sometimes I think we forget there`s 11 other guys lined up on the other side. They`re working schemes just like our guys. Sometimes ours and theirs don`t match up to our advantage. Gonna happen. I think that`s one of the things to which CNS is referring when he speaks of every play having a life of its own.Sometimes the plan fails, regroup, learn from it, and try not to repeat it. Kid has it right.
Actually, in the game thread, when people were dogging the OL and saying they were missing blocks, I tried to point out that they were bringing one and two more rushers. I wasn't blaming the OL. I was just wondering why we weren't countering with the weapons we had, rather than persisting with slow developing plays...
Seemed like Paul Rhodes had the same thought Charles Kelly of FSU had - when you get behind by too much, just blitz because you have nothing to lose.Actually, in the game thread, when people were dogging the OL and saying they were missing blocks, I tried to point out that they were bringing one and two more rushers. I wasn't blaming the OL. I was just wondering why we weren't countering with the weapons we had, rather than persisting with slow developing plays...
KarmaHow funny is it that right before UT game our OL makes krispy kreme comment, just seems like they are thinking about Phat Phil and his krispy kreme obsession LOL
I'm not critical of Daboll as a whole. The offense is performing well and he hasn't said or done one stupid or immature thing that I'm aware of (so no late season meltdown like Kiffin had). But, it still feels to me like he's adjusting to play calling again or somewhat to the college game.I was just wondering why we weren't countering with the weapons we had, rather than persisting with slow developing plays...
It wasn't a bad idea. It worked for them for a while...Seemed like Paul Rhodes had the same thought Charles Kelly of FSU had - when you get behind by too much, just blitz because you have nothing to lose.
Indeed. I just hope teams like LSU, AU, and UGA don't go that route from the start of the game while we don't have something ready to combat it.It wasn't a bad idea. It worked for them for a while...
if it starts happening a lot, i would guess we would have a plan in placeIndeed. I just hope teams like LSU, AU, and UGA don't go that route from the start of the game while we don't have something ready to combat it.
Seems to me that it's getting pretty routine and we try to ignore it at first...if it starts happening a lot, i would guess we would have a plan in place
Yup. That's why I want to see what Tennessee will do this Saturday. Will they do the same plan that Arkansas and other did? I suspect we may be encouraging the teams to do that to get LSU and Auburn to bite on that, and we'll have a game plan ready.Seems to me that it's getting pretty routine and we try to ignore it at first...
I've never quite agreed with this line of thinking. I don't think that we do things or withhold schemes that could potentially hurt us in one game in order to surprise another team in the next game. Failing to adjust to the pass rush of Tennessee just so we could pull out new protections against LSU and Auburn is very foolish.Yup. That's why I want to see what Tennessee will do this Saturday. Will they do the same plan that Arkansas and other did? I suspect we may be encouraging the teams to do that to get LSU and Auburn to bite on that, and we'll have a game plan ready.
IDK. I think we at times play with as bland and vanilla offense and defense as we can and reveal as little of the playbook as possible. It seems to me that, in those games where we're playing vanilla (hand tied behind back?), we sometimes seem reluctant to trot out the plays which would work against the other team. Is that disagreeing with you?I've never quite agreed with this line of thinking. I don't think that we do things or withhold schemes that could potentially hurt us in one game in order to surprise another team in the next game. Failing to adjust to the pass rush of Tennessee just so we could pull out new protections against LSU and Auburn is very foolish.
I'm NOT saying there aren't plays we haven't seen (err - I AM saying there are plays we haven't seen - err, I'm probably making the confusion worse.) I just don't think we play with our left hand tied behind our back on the offensive line against another SEC team in order to get the drop on the next SEC opponent. Teams will only be encouraged to blitz constantly if they are having success, and if they are having success that means we are not controlling the game like we want.
I can't fathom a situation in which Nick Saban would put his team in a compromising position just to hopefully get a schematic edge later on down the line. We will play Tennessee with the best scheme and game plan currently available and will certainly NOT be purposefully allowing blitz packages to harass or disrupt our QB or our offensive backfield on purpose.
It's automatic checkdowns and hot routes in the NFL, not to mention he's been on the sidelines with that guy who is married to the lingerie model.Seems to me that it's getting pretty routine and we try to ignore it at first...
If you practice certain plays all week, you run those plays. You are not totally tied to them, but you risk mistakes if you start calling plays that have not been practiced in weeks. In the NFL, the entire playbook is available every week. At the college level, the playbook is much more limited on a week to week basis. So you are correct, but so is Intl - it is a risk, and it can result in a loss if the other team really plays well on defense.IDK. I think we at times play with as bland and vanilla offense and defense as we can and reveal as little of the playbook as possible. It seems to me that, in those games where we're playing vanilla (hand tied behind back?), we sometimes seem reluctant to trot out the plays which would work against the other team. Is that disagreeing with you?
Sure, but what Arkansas did seems to have been totally out of character for them. So Daboll had to make adjustments to his game plan, including calling plays that left RBs in the backfield to help with protection when they had not practiced those plays. Arkansas was run blitzing on almost every play, and they were coming from everywhere.Eh, the things we're talking about aren't mutually exclusive - you can run a vanilla offense and still manage to not look like blitzing is some sort of never seen before innovation.